21 Aug 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAre you not paying attention? When Christians say that God is not subject to death, we mean He cannot cease to exist. Ceasing to breathe on the cross did not cause Him to cease to exist.
[b]What exactly is the difference between 'not being subject to death' and 'existing forever'?
Christians do not believe that 'dying' and 'ceasing to exist' are synonymous.
You don't see the inconsistency in your position here?
If God is not subject to death, then how did he die on the cross?[/b]
We believe the spirit lives on after bodily function ceases. Better?
21 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusWhether vice means either defect or moral failing/evil is irrelevant. If it is possible for perfection to carry no vice and that defect and moral failing/evil are a subset of his definition of vice, then perfection cannot carry evil. Are you suggesting that evil is compatible with perfection? If not, the silly semantics you are offering are meaningless in refutation of his point and if so, you are clearly bonkers.
You said you defined perfection as "without blemish or vice" and then define evil as a vice. This is a clear equivocation, as vice can mean EITHER defect OR moral failing/evil. The definition of perfect includes nothing about 'evil'. Nice try.
21 Aug 06
Originally posted by DarfiusI think you've missed his joke.
"Mere Christianity" isn't fiction, Einstein.
I'd like to thank Telerion. You can probably tell from my earlier points that I am in agreement with him; unlike me, he's laid out the argument patiently and clearly. I have to say I think to this point he has won hands down; it is ironic that in a thread that asked us to consider things from a gods' eye point of view, there is such a reluctance to critically consider the implications of omnipotence, omniscience, and perfection.
21 Aug 06
Originally posted by dottewellI'm always willing to critically consider such things. Just not with a guy who thinks to be excessively verbose is to be right.
I think you've missed his joke.
I'd like to thank Telerion. You can probably tell from my earlier points that I am in agreement with him; unlike me, he's laid out the argument patiently and clearly. I have to say I think to this point he has won hands down; it is ironic that in a thread that asked us to consider things from a gods' eye point of view, th ...[text shortened]... uctance to critically consider the implications of omnipotence, omniscience, and perfection.
21 Aug 06
Originally posted by StarrmanCalling me bonkers isn't a refutation to what I say. At any rate, evil will not be a permanent fixture. But it just may be necessary so that the triumph of goodness will be all the sweeter.
Whether vice means either defect or moral failing/evil is irrelevant. If it is possible for perfection to carry no vice and that defect and moral failing/evil are a subset of his definition of vice, then perfection cannot carry evil. Are you suggesting that evil is compatible with perfection? If not, the silly semantics you are offering are meaningless in refutation of his point and if so, you are clearly bonkers.
21 Aug 06
Originally posted by DarfiusI never claimed it was, I wasn't calling you bonkers unless you think evil is a part of perfection. If you consider the nature of evil to be intrinsic to the potency of ensuing good, then you are tying your idea of god to the neccessity of evil in the world.
Calling me bonkers isn't a refutation to what I say. At any rate, evil will not be a permanent fixture. But it just may be necessary so that the triumph of goodness will be all the sweeter.
21 Aug 06
4 edits
Originally posted by DarfiusBut I don't think the substance of his posts has been addressed.
I'm always willing to critically consider such things. Just not with a guy who thinks to be excessively verbose is to be right.
If we imagine a pre-creation state in which only god exists, it seems odd to say that this can be improved on in any way; to do so would seem to indicate imperfection (something which is perfect cannot be improved; that would be my definition).
If we ignore this and say god simply wants to share perfection/love and so create other sentient beings, it seems perfectly reasonable - if free will is compatible with god's foreknowledge and omniscience - to say he could have created a world in which all sentient beings freely came to the conclusion that god's path was the correct path, and acted in a loving and "Christian" manner.
To now claim that it is somehow better to choose god in a world of (man-made) evil than in a world of no evil, is deeply counter-intuitive. Prima facie, the world with the best possible outcome (the maximum number of souls FREELY choosing the path of god, and eternal life) is more "perfect" than other outcomes.
It seems you are left in a Leibnitzian position; you have to assume this world is the best possible world, and try to justify that, because the consequences are unpalatable. That's putting the cart before the horse.
21 Aug 06
Excuse my delay; out paying the bills and whatnot.
Some minor points may have appeared to have been overlooked in my absence.
To Darfius: we are born into sin, via the sin nature inherited from Adam. Passed on by every male in copulation, the sin nature is the inside agent in every one of us, present in the cell structure.
To my apparent lack of Catholicism: while I am not Catholic, I do not hold it against those who hold to the same.
Whether imperfection is part of the plan: the system of good and evil--- foreseen by God as the ingenius plot of Satan in his attempt to overthrow God's system of life--- was no surprise to God, and is therefore used by Him to serve His purposes. Remember, even the wrath of man will serve to praise Him.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by dottewellEven with the angel example, some free will beings CHOSE to rebel agaisnt God. So if you skeptics wish to claim that it's possible to have a world with free will and 100% of those beings choose God, then please explain how.
But I don't think the substance of his posts has been addressed.
If we imagine a pre-creation state in which only god exists, it seems odd to say that this can be improved on in any way; to do so would seem to indicate imperfection (something which is perfect cannot be improved; that would be my definition).
If we ignore this and say god simply wants ...[text shortened]... hat, because the consequences are unpalatable. That's putting the cart before the horse.
22 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusIf you accept that "real" free will is compatible with at least SOME free agents choosing god, and you accept that god is both omnipotent (can create any number of possible realities) and omniscient (knows exactly how those realities will transpire), then how could it not be possible?
Even with the angel example, some free will beings CHOSE to rebel agaisnt God. So if you skeptics wish to claim that it's possible to have a world with free will and 100% of those beings choose God, then please explain how.
Look at it this way; it is possible (though highly unlikely) I could roll a "6" on a standard die 100 times in a row on 22 August 2006. Now couldn't an omnipotent, omniscient god have set up the universe, at the very beginning of time, to ensure I achieve this goal WITHOUT LOADING THE DIE IN ANY WAY?
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWow, present in the cell structure? Please tell me where in the cell structure I can find 'sin nature'.
Excuse my delay; out paying the bills and whatnot.
Some minor points may have appeared to have been overlooked in my absence.
To Darfius: we are born into sin, via the sin nature inherited from Adam. Passed on by every male in copulation, the sin nature is the inside agent in every one of us, present in the cell structure.
To my apparent ...[text shortened]... e used by Him to serve His purposes. Remember, even the wrath of man will serve to praise Him.
Of course, that will be problematic, since when Paul spoke of 'death passing to all men through Adam', he meant the SENTENCE of death for sin, not us paying for something he chose to do.
Aside from original sin adherents lacking any prooftexts whatsoever, they apparently lack the ability to consider the logical implications of their belief. If sin is something we are born into, and cannot help but do, then God is "saving" us from a condition He imposed upon us. It's exactly analogous to pushing someone off a boat, throwing them a life saver, expecting them to respond with gratitude and being angry when they show you disdain.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by dottewellBecause the free will beings would INTERACT with each other. And they will also interact with the world. Also considering the fact that God has chosen to remain distant (physically), the skeptic would be hardpressed to explain how everyone would freely choose to make the right decision when it is simple to: blame God for misfortune, lose focus on God to temporal things (idolatry), prefer selfish evil to selflessness good. Maybe it IS logically impossible to have a world inhabited by free will beings and have them ALL choose to follow you. Perhaps some only choose to follow because of the objective evil of those who choose not to. There are many, many factors to consider, so to simply point to God's omnipotence and say "hey, it could happen" is not sufficient to claim that this world is less than the best possible one.
If you accept that "real" free will is compatible with at least SOME free agents choosing god, and you accept that god is both omnipotent (can create any number of possible realities) and omniscient (knows exactly how those realities will transpire), then how could it not be possible?
Look at it this way; it is possible (though highly unlikely) I could ...[text shortened]... e very beginning of time, to ensure I achieve this goal WITHOUT LOADING THE DIE IN ANY WAY?
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by DarfiusYou've already conceded that it's possible. Your fighting so hard that you're confusing yourself.
Even with the angel example, some free will beings CHOSE to rebel agaisnt God. So if you skeptics wish to claim that it's possible to have a world with free will and 100% of those beings choose God, then please explain how.